Compare packets loss rate of BBR and CUBIC on ns3

 In this post, I compare the performance of BBR and Cubic on ns3 in term of packets loss rate. And the simulation code is based on quic coebase. A point to point channel is built. In each test case, three fows are injected into the link and with the same congestion control algorithm(Cubic or BBR).
 And there is a paremeter (drain_to_target_) in quic BBR, which impact the performance of the algorithm in term of packet loss. Here, BBR(false) means that (drain_to_target_=false).

case	BBR(false)	BBR(true)	CUBIC
1	0.0360	0.0110	0.0077
2	0.0289	0.0099	0.0099
3	0.0301	0.0097	0.0106
4	0.0400	0.0128	0.0054
5	0.0255	0.0097	0.0073
6	0.0191	0.0097	0.0088
7	0.0330	0.0098	0.0047
8	0.0337	0.0096	0.0062
9	0.0168	0.0096	0.0076

  The averge packets loss rate of BBR 1%~2% seems quite conforming with these tests in [3,4]. The cubic can achieve lower packets loss rate but also results in longer packet transmision delay. And the packet loss rate in cellular access network seem quit low about 1% as tested by [6,7].
 The packet loss in internet for webrtc also is also low enough (below 1% in most cases) testd in [8].
 Even through BBR has bias torwards longer RTT flows [5], It can get quite high utilization of link bandwidth resource and achieve lower transmisison delay.
  The rate dynamic when two BBR flows (flow1 and flow2) competing bandwidth (total 12 Mbps) with a Cubic flow(flow3):

 Packet one way transmission delay:

[1] quic code
[2] Increased Retransmission using BBR
[3] BBR Congestion Control: An Update
[4] BBR Congestion Control Work at Google
[5] BBR拥塞控制RTT不公平性测试
[6] End-to-end delay analysis of WeChat video call service in live DC-HSPA+ network
[7] Performance Evaluation of WeChat Video Call Service in Live HSPA+ Network
[8] Performance of DASH and WebRTC Video Services for Mobile Users